EXP.
No. PIURA
03299-2010-PC/TC
PURÍSIMA CONSUELO NAVARRO
SALDARRIAGA OF
JUDGEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
In Lima, at 21 days of October 2010, First Chamber of the Constitutional Court, composed of Judges Callirgos Beaumont, Eto Urviola Cruz and Hani, made the following statement
SUBJECT
Appeal filed by the constitutional tort Purisima Dona Consuelo Navarro Saldarriaga against the decision of the Second Chamber in Civil Superior Court of Justice of Piura, on pages 43 date July 23, 2010, which declared inadmissible in limine the demand for cars.
BACKGROUND On May 7, 2010, plaintiff brought the claim of compliance against the manager of Planning and Budget of the Regional Government of Piura, seeking to give effect to the provisions in Resolution of the Office of Resources No. Human 009-2010/GOB.REG.PIURA-OHR, dated January 22, 2010, concedes that 31 years of service to the State and law charged for a one-time amount of S /. 2,662.05, equivalent to three total remuneration by way of allocation integrity for having completed 30 years of service.
The Third Civil Court of Piura, dated May 11, 2010, declared inadmissible, in limine, demand, holding that the constitutional processes do not come when there are specific procedural way, equally satisfactory for the protection of constitutional law threatened or violated
reviewing
The Board confirms the appeal as not in the record the resolution which compliance is demanded in order to assess if appropriate to the above requirements specified, also subject to it also warns that not work in cars that have complied with the requirement laid down in Article 69 of the Code of Constitutional Procedure. BASICS
In this case, the preliminary rejection became incorrect because in the case in (F. 59 to 65), it is established that the applicant has met the specific requirements of the demand for compliance under Article 69 . No Constitutional Procedural Code. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence and considering that it would be unfair to compel the applicant to travel back through the courts, it would be a unnecessary delay the process that would contravene the principles of judicial economy and speed, this school believes make pronouncements on the merits.
By Resolution of the Human Resources Office No. 009-2010/GOB.REG.PIURA-OHR which are contained on pages 59, is credited to the appellant 30 years and one month of services rendered to the State at 30 December 2009 and the right to receive a one-time amount of S /. 2,662.05, equivalent to three (3) total compensation integrate allowance on account of having completed 30 years of service.
That, as you noted, that decision has been issued according to law and is in force, being so, the Court must order compliance, given that the resolution meets the requirements that have been established as a precedent in the STC 0168-2005-PC/TC.
For the reasons stated, the Constitutional Court with the authority under the Constitution of Peru
RESOLVED 1. Upheld the claim of compliance.
2. Order the location that the appellant paid the allowance for 30 years of service.
published and notifíquese.
SS.
Callirgos BEAUMONT ETO
CRUZ
URVIOLA HANI
No. PIURA
03299-2010-PC/TC
PURÍSIMA CONSUELO NAVARRO
SALDARRIAGA OF
JUDGEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
In Lima, at 21 days of October 2010, First Chamber of the Constitutional Court, composed of Judges Callirgos Beaumont, Eto Urviola Cruz and Hani, made the following statement
SUBJECT
Appeal filed by the constitutional tort Purisima Dona Consuelo Navarro Saldarriaga against the decision of the Second Chamber in Civil Superior Court of Justice of Piura, on pages 43 date July 23, 2010, which declared inadmissible in limine the demand for cars.
BACKGROUND On May 7, 2010, plaintiff brought the claim of compliance against the manager of Planning and Budget of the Regional Government of Piura, seeking to give effect to the provisions in Resolution of the Office of Resources No. Human 009-2010/GOB.REG.PIURA-OHR, dated January 22, 2010, concedes that 31 years of service to the State and law charged for a one-time amount of S /. 2,662.05, equivalent to three total remuneration by way of allocation integrity for having completed 30 years of service.
The Third Civil Court of Piura, dated May 11, 2010, declared inadmissible, in limine, demand, holding that the constitutional processes do not come when there are specific procedural way, equally satisfactory for the protection of constitutional law threatened or violated
reviewing
The Board confirms the appeal as not in the record the resolution which compliance is demanded in order to assess if appropriate to the above requirements specified, also subject to it also warns that not work in cars that have complied with the requirement laid down in Article 69 of the Code of Constitutional Procedure. BASICS
In this case, the preliminary rejection became incorrect because in the case in (F. 59 to 65), it is established that the applicant has met the specific requirements of the demand for compliance under Article 69 . No Constitutional Procedural Code. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence and considering that it would be unfair to compel the applicant to travel back through the courts, it would be a unnecessary delay the process that would contravene the principles of judicial economy and speed, this school believes make pronouncements on the merits.
By Resolution of the Human Resources Office No. 009-2010/GOB.REG.PIURA-OHR which are contained on pages 59, is credited to the appellant 30 years and one month of services rendered to the State at 30 December 2009 and the right to receive a one-time amount of S /. 2,662.05, equivalent to three (3) total compensation integrate allowance on account of having completed 30 years of service.
That, as you noted, that decision has been issued according to law and is in force, being so, the Court must order compliance, given that the resolution meets the requirements that have been established as a precedent in the STC 0168-2005-PC/TC.
For the reasons stated, the Constitutional Court with the authority under the Constitution of Peru
RESOLVED 1. Upheld the claim of compliance.
2. Order the location that the appellant paid the allowance for 30 years of service.
published and notifíquese.
SS.
Callirgos BEAUMONT ETO
CRUZ
URVIOLA HANI
0 comments:
Post a Comment